Menu

Post navigation

In the 2006 film “Lucky Number Slevin” Mr. Goodkat explains the concept of a “Kansas City Shuffle” to Nick Fisher, a degenerate gambler who owes two different mob bosses a large amount of money. As Bruce Willis’s character explains; a “Kansas City Shuffle” is when everybody else goes left, you go right.

This basic “bait and switch” con is used all the time in politics, anytime there is a “scandal” of any sorts, it is prudent to dig a little deeper to find out what’s really going on. Let’s take the current geopolitical atmosphere, for example. For weeks the media, egged on by the Trump administration and China, have been focused on North Korea. Most rationale people see through this ploy, but nothing unites the country like a common enemy, even if that common enemy doesn’t pose much of a threat at all, so the media ran with it. So while the media has blown this story way out of proportion, I did what I always do; looked to see what else was going on in the region. While the Trump Administration has been threatening China over North Korea, the real threat to global security was happening a few thousand kilometers away, in a small piece of disputed territory in the Himalayan mountains between the world’s two most populous countries.

On June 16th, flanked by Chinese troops, construction began on a road in the disputed territory of Doklam. The territory is located in the Himalayan mountains between Tibet’s “Chumbi Valley,” and Bhutan’s “Ha Valley.” The area has been claimed by Bhutan since 1961, China also claims the territory, saying it is part of Tibet and therefore Chinese land. Despite 24 rounds of border negotiations over the last 56 years, no progress has been made on the dispute.

While the mountain kingdom of Bhutan has less than a million citizens, they have been protected by a “Treaty of Friendship” with India since 1949. This treaty states that India will protect Bhutan from foreign aggression. India takes this treaty very seriously, so seriously that India’s main garrison is located just 13 miles from the disputed territory. So it comes as no surprise that on June 18th India mobilized 270 troops to Doklam to “protect” Bhutan. Many in Bhutan view the standoff as less about protecting their country, and more of a pissing match between India and China. Whether or not India actually cares about the safety of Bhutan is largely irrelevant. The danger is that the “People’s Liberation Army of China” boasts 2.285 million soldiers, while the “Indian Armed Forces” has a standing army of over 1.4 million troops. While both governments have called for a peaceful resolution, neither nuclear power is willing to back down; culminating in a “minor scuffle” this week as Chinese forces tried to enter Indian territory near Pangong lake near Ladakh on Tuesday.

While it is easy to ignore a story about two countries halfway around the world, both China and India play a major role in global manufacturing. China, for example,produced 90% of the world’s computers in 2011. While India continues to grow their economy through manufacturing:“Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows in India’s manufacturing sector grew by 82 per cent year-on-year to US$ 16.13 billion during April-November 2016.”

A military conflict between the two countries would inevitably draw attention from US-based companies like Apple, Dell, Microsoft, and others who rely on Indian and Chinese labor to build their products. A conflict would more than likely reduce supply, meaning higher prices for the consumer.

Any major conflict between the two countries could also present an opportunity for Paki

stan, another nuclear power, to possibly try and take control of Kashmir and Jammu, the disputed states that mark the border between India and Pakistan. This border dispute has led to three separate conflicts since 1947. A three-way conflict between nuclear powers could easily escalate into something much larger, putting us all at risk.

Much like The Boss and The Rabbi in “Lucky Number Slevin,” the United States has fallen for a “Kansas City Shuffle,” ignoring this border dispute while focusing on a hermit kingdom and a dictator, suffering from Napoleon complex.

Like this:

My junior year in high school I accepted my first job in the service industry. I was a busboy at a restaurant owned by the local country club. I was pretty excited for the opportunity; the restaurant was ten minutes from my parents house, the wait staff was made up of beautiful girls I’d grown up with, and the guys in the kitchen were willing to buy me and my friends alcohol. As a 17 year old, I couldn’t ask for more. The only problem was, I was scheduled to work till close every Friday and Saturday night. I remember complaining about my schedule to my dad, telling him that working till 11 at every Friday and Saturday night left me with no time to hang out with my friends.

In retrospect, his response was predictable; my dad comes from a blue-collar family, and the work ethic instilled upon him by my grandfather has allowed him to become successful in his career. He looked at me and told me “it’s a job, people around here would kill for the opportunity you have, don’t blow it because you don’t like the hours.” This was in suburban Detroit at the onset of the financial crisis, the parents of my friends primarily worked in the auto-industry and were losing their careers left and right. My dad’s message was clear, nobody is entitled to a job. People on both sides of the aisle seem to have forgotten this.

This week Google fired James Damore, the author of a 10 page internal letter sent to his colleagues at Google about diversity in the workplace. While the left has called his letter sexist, the right has hailed his letter as brutally honest. In it he acknowledges that racism and sexism exists, but points out that society may be ignoring human nature. Men and women, black and white, etc. all have different psychological and biological make ups that make absolute equality nearly impossible, some groups are going to be better at some things than other groups. He states that our experiences help build who we become, and he rightly states that companies need a diverse set of opinions and experiences to thrive. In his opinion, Google has failed in that sense. Google disagreed, and this week they fired him. Damore is now exploring legal action against the search engine.

Similarly Colin Kaepernick has been unable to find a job in the NFL following his actions last season with the San Francisco 49er’s. Throughout last season Kaepernick, who had previously led his team to a berth in the Super Bowl, took a knee during the national anthem; when the media started picking up on this story his actions became controversial, the right got upset at his “disrespect” while the left hailed his bravery. Kaepernick followed this up by expressing his political beliefs publicly. While talking on these issues, the quarterback pledged to donate $1 million dollars of his salary to various charities that he believes make a difference. As of June Kaepernick had donated $700,000 to 24 organizations. Kaepernick’s actions took bravery, and he had every right to speak out, but he had to know there would be backlash. But I doubt anyone realized that as of August 8th he would be unemployed. ESPN, which has moved further and further to the left over the last couple of years, has been outraged. He deserves a job, they clamor. The outrage has gone so far that multiple ESPN personalities have demanded that the NFL step in and force a team to sign him, much like how they pressured the Rams to draft Michael Sam, the first openly gay player to be drafted.

Both the Damore and Kaepernick stories are incredibly similar. Both Damore and Kaepernick took a public stance on something they believe in, both are now unemployed, and both have drawn criticism from those who disagree with their actions. But both must now reap what they sow.

Damore isn’t entitled to his job at Google just because the right believes he in his actions. Simultaneously, no NFL team must sign Colin Kaepernick just because the left found him courageous. Both Google and NFL franchises are businesses, neither is required to employ someone whom they believe may damage their brand. In Google’s case; many employees feel uncomfortable with Damore’s letter, and they have determined that their brand suffers from his presence. In the NFL’s case; owners, coaches, and GM’s have determined that their brand would suffer from signing Colin Kaepernick. It doesn’t matter how good these men may be at their professions, employers are always going to way risk versus reward.

None of us are entitled to a job. If you take a stand, or express an opinion that your employer disagrees with, or believes damages the brand, then they don’t need to keep paying you. Your bravery, right or wrong, does not entitle you to a paycheck. We all must accept responsibility for our actions.

Like this:

Over the weekend, while out with my friends, I asked “what Republicans will run for President in 2020?” They all sort of looked at me with strange looks, one of them said “this is why we don’t invite you to things” while another asked “who wants to play Buckhunter?” Being a politico is difficult sometimes. After most of the table cleared out to go play Buckhunter, I was left with two others. Besides myself (a Libertarian) I was left with a Republican and a Democrat. While the three of us don’t generally agree on many political issues, we all agreed that Robert Mueller convening a federal grand jury to look into Russian meddling likely meant that Trump would either be impeached, resign, or not run for re-election.

Over the next half hour we came up with a list of five Republicans who we all thought could win the nomination in 2020.

Mike Pence

The most obvious choice for the Republican nomination is current Vice President, and former Governor of Indiana Mike Pence.

Nobody wants to be Vice President, the position has no purpose outside of breaking a tie in the Senate, and most find it to be an exceptionally boring, and possibly worthless job. John Adams, our nation’s first Vice President stated:

“My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.”

Adams may have been the first to complain about the office, but he wasn’t the last. The office is generally sought by those who have higher aspirations, and appearances suggest that Pence wants to be President. While he has denounced rumors that he would challenge Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020, he certainly has the pedigree for the position. Prior to being Governor of Indiana he served in the House of Representatives from 2001 till 2013, serving as the chairman of the House Republican Conference from 2009-2011.

On the issues Pence is pro-life, pushed for a balanced budget amendment to Indiana’s state constitution, opposed government bailouts, is against increasing regulations, is for “stop and frisk” policies, supports the war on drugs, and is a hawk on foreign policy issues.

Pence would have a leg up for the nomination, especially if Trump doesn’t finish his first term. If he were to audition for the office, it’s hard to imagine that Pence, an establishment favorite, wouldn’t seek the nomination in 2020.

John Kasich

The current Governor of Ohio sought the Republican nomination in 2016, and has been a staunch opponent of President Trump since the beginning. Over the last few years he has done as much as he possibly can to distance himself from Donald Trump, including skipping last summer’s convention, even though it was being held in Cleveland. Kasich, also an establishment favorite, served in the House of Representatives from 1983 till 2001, and supposedly turned down Trump’s offer to become Vice President.

When it comes to the issues, Kasich has been a staunch advocate for criminal justice reform; signing bills in 2012 and 2011 that make it easier for felons to find jobs, and advocating for shorter rehabilitation over prison for nonviolent offenders. Kasich favors “common core,” wants to “repeal and replace” Obamacare, and while he wants to cut corporate taxes, he also wants to raise taxes on oil companies, and move away from the income tax.

Governor Kasich has failed to rule out a 2020 Presidential run, and is planning several “policy forums” across Ohio and New Hampshire.

Nikki Haley

The former Governor of South Carolina, and current UN Ambassador has never been a Trump supporter (despite serving in his cabinet). Her reputation is helped by the rumor that one of the key reasons she was chosen as UN Ambassador is because her former Lt. Governor in South Carolina, Henry McMaster, was a vocal Trump supporter. When Haley was named UN Ambassador McMaster became South Carolina’s Governor, the rumor is this was McMasters reward for supporting Trump.

Nikki Haley presents a unique opportunity for Republicans. Her Indian-American ancestry would essentially negate any perceived advantage Democrat Kamala Harris, another Indian-American, would have based on gender and ancestry alone. The fact that female minorities would have two qualified candidates to choose from would mean that they would be more likely to vote on policy issues, rather than following their heart strings.

While serving as Governor of South Carolina, Haley reduced unemployment from 11% to 4% and created 85,000 new jobs. She’s anti-Obamacare, pro gun rights, anti-immigration, and pro-life.

Rand Paul

Another former presidential candidate, Senator Rand Paul is among the most ideologically consistent members of the Senate who easily won re-election last year. Senator Paul is a favorite among libertarian leaning republicans. During his time in office he has been critical of the NSA and the surveillance state that is supported by many establishment leaders, he’s been critical of our foreign policy, he’s one of only a few Republicans who has recently advocated for a full repeal of Obamacare, he’s co-sponsored legislation with liberal Senators like Kamala Harris and Corey Booker on issues like criminal justice and bail reform. He’s been critical of Washington’s spending problem, while consistently vocalizing his opposition to new taxes and regulations.

While Paul may have some issues with establishment republicans; his crossover appeal with both libertarians and (some) democrats, as well as his popularity with millennials could mean a well-run campaign leading up to 2020 could secure his nomination.

Ben Sasse

The freshman Senator from Nebraska has always been a vocal opponent of Donald Trump. In the lead up to the 2014 election, Sasse ran as the “anti Obamacare” candidate and ran as a strong social conservative.

When it comes to Obamacare, he has consistently voted to repeal as much of the act as possible. In his short time in office, he has also taken a surprisingly libertarian view on foreign policy issues; joining Senator Paul in opposing additional sanctions against Russia, and opposing selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.

When it comes to the economy, Sasse has consistently been against government regulations, while calling for more privatization and a revamp of the tax code.

Like Kasich, Sasse also hasn’t ruled out a 2020 run. In the last few months, Sasse has popped up across the state of Iowa; whether he’s talking policy, or just driving for Uber, the Nebraska Senator has made sure that Iowans know who he is.

As Republicans continue to distance themselves from President Trump, it doesn’t look like the party would have much difficulty in finding a better candidate in 2020.

After the election of Donald Trump, many people got irrational, particularly Governor Jerry Brown, and the people of California (who ironically opened an embassy in Moscow in protest). Since then, many people, both in California and across the country, have pushed for the Golden State’s secession. Last Tuesday, California’s Attorney General decided to humor the #CalExit organizers.

Last Tuesday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra apparently finished his scotch, said “what the hell,” and gave his stamp of approval for a group of people to begin gathering the more than 585,000 signatures needed to allow a ballot initiative that would allow a ballot initiative calling for secession to be put on the 2018 ballot. If the ballot measure were to somehow pass, a commission would form to explore how the state could secede from the United States, unfortunately, this will never happen.

Secession isn’t a new idea, outside the Civil War, the idea pops up every couple of years, normally in Texas, and at that time realists endlessly mock these attempts, and for good reason, the fact remains that there is no way to secede from the Union written in the Constitution. Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution deals with how to admit a new state into the country, but the reverse is never discussed, and has been dismissed outright by plenty of respectable legal scholars.

In 2006, former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was asked by screenwriter Dan Turkewitz if a group of people suing the government for the right to secede would be a good plot point. Scalia responded saying that state’s do not have the right to secede. In his letter back to Turkewitz, Scalia said that such an issue would never even reach the Supreme Court:“To begin with, the answer is clear. If there was any constitutional issue resolved by the Civil War, it is that there is no right to secede. … Secondly, I find it difficult to envision who the parties to this lawsuit might be. Is the State suing the United States for a declaratory judgment? But the United States cannot be sued without its consent, and it has not consented to this sort of suit.”

What Justice Scalia pointed out in that first line is something most people don’t realize. In the eyes of the United States government, there no such thing as the “Confederate States of America.” The southern states, in their mind, were just occupied by hostile citizens. This line of thinking was pointed out in the 1869 Supreme Court case Texas v. White. This case argued that Texas’s Confederate state legislature had illegally sold bonds that were owned by Texas, and issued by the United States government as part of the compromise of 1850. While ruling on this case, the justices wrote; “The Constitution, in all its provisions… looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States.”

So while Jefferson Davis and his friends may have seen themselves as an independent country, the United States hadn’t given them the go-ahead to secede, so they had no sovereignty. The Civil War was a war for independence, much like the American Revolution was a war for independence. We had to defeat the British before getting the go-ahead to secede; if we had lost, we’d have socialized medicine and a government that doesn’t respect individual rights, and do we really want that?

While it amuses us to think that a state that disagrees with our own core ideologies could soon be gone, it is unlikely to happen. So unfortunately it looks as though referring to San Francisco as a “foreign country” will remain hyperbole.

In 1973, former Attorney General Elliott Richardson was assigned a task; appoint a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation into the Watergate Scandal. Richardson turned to his former Harvard Law Professor, Archibald Cox. Appointing Cox as special prosecutor, as it turns out, was the beginning of the end for President Nixon.

Drunk on power, Nixon saw himself as untouchable, he felt as though he had the support of his party, and that he had loyal men working to clear his name. As he started to doubt that loyalty, it all came crashing down on October 23, 1973. On what later became known as the “Saturday Night Massacre,” the White House announced the dismissals, and resignations of special prosecutor Cox, Attorney General Richardson, and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus, abolishing the office of special prosecutor all together, and handing the investigation over to the Justice Department.

The entire ordeal unfolded because Nixon thought he was untouchable, he refused to turn over documents and tapes related to the investigation, and when challenged he demanded that Richardson fire Cox. When Richardson refused, Nixon pressured Richardson to resign. Upon the resignation of Elliott Richardson, William Ruckelshaus was promoted to acting Attorney General and given the same orders, when Ruckelshaus refused, Nixon forced him to resign. The law states that when there is no Attorney General, the Solicitor General – in this case Robert Bork – becomes the acting Attorney General. Unlike his predecessors, Bork followed Nixon’s orders and fired Archibald Cox. As if that wasn’t enough bad PR, the scene got even uglier when word got out that the FBI, at the request of the White House, had sealed off access to the offices of those that had been forced out.

Soon after the “Saturday Night Massacre” support for Nixon within Congress began to erode. The House Judiciary Committee announced they would move ahead with impeachment proceedings, and the Supreme Court ordered the White House to turn over all the tapes and documents they had in relation to Watergate.

Elliott Richardson and Richard Nixon

Within 10 months of the entire ordeal Nixon resigned.

It is impossible to look at President Trump, and the way he has handled himself, and not draw comparisons to Nixon. Like Nixon, Trump is being investigated by a special counselor, Robert Mueller, who is looking into possible Russian involvement into the 2016 Presidential election. Like Nixon, Trump has demanded absolute loyalty from those he works with. Former FBI director James Comey has testified to this. Comey testified that Trump had demanded loyalty from him, then ordered him to drop an investigation into former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s ties to Russia. When he refused to comply, James Comey was fired. Like Nixon, Trump is frustrated with his Attorney General, publicly humiliating him on numerous occasions. President Trump probably sees the fact that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from any investigation into Russia as a personal betrayal. After all, being named Attorney General was a reward to Sessions for his early support as he sought the presidency.

The recusal of Sessions has left Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in charge of the investigation into possible Russian meddling, and for over a month now, it has been widely reported that Trump wants to fire Mueller. The problem is, he doesn’t have that power, only the Attorney General does, and since Sessions has recused himself from this investigation, that means only Rosenstein has that power. What Trump can do, however, is pull a Nixon; request that Rosenstein fires Mueller or face the consequences, which would probably mean he would be fired.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions

In my mind it seems that Trumps public temper tantrum against Jeff Sessions is his way of acting out in frustration. Trump probably believes that if Sessions hadn’t recused himself, he would be willing to fire Mueller and put an end to this investigation. Instead he is stuck with a Deputy Attorney General that isn’t as loyal to Trump as Sessions had been.

Power corrupts. In both the Watergate scandal, and the Russia investigation, a paranoid President that demands absolute loyalty has gone out of his way to control an outcome. Sally Yates, Michael Flynn, Preet Bharara, Katie Walsh, James Comey, Michael Dubke, Walter Shaub, Sean Spicer, and Michael Short have all either been fired or resigned since Trump took office on January 20th. The Trump administration has gone out of their way to prove that loyalty is the only thing that matters. While it’s impossible to know what Trump’s legacy will ultimately be, it’s hard not to see that history may be repeating itself.

Logging onto Facebook this morning I was met with a pleasant surprise – a message reminding me that it had been a year since I had signed on to the Gary Johnson campaign. The public declaration that I was done with the Grand Ole Party meant absolutely nothing to the people on my friends list, let’s be honest most people don’t give a damn about your political leanings unless you’re constantly flaunting your beliefs. The announcement did, however, mean a lot to me.

Prior to last July I was a Republican who had gradually lost faith in the Republican Party. I was sick of the hypocrisy, the blatant violation of our civil liberties, the lack of fiscal conservatism, and the message of the Republican nominee for President. I felt, at the time, that Gary Johnson could legitimately carry a state in the general election. My optimism turned out to be wrong; Johnson/Weld did not carry a state, nor did they receive an electoral vote. Despite that, the ticket received nearly 4.5 million votes, carrying 3.27% of the vote, while appearing on the ballot in all 50 states and Washington DC. Disappointing according to my own expectations? Yes. But the election was monumental for the Libertarian Party.

For the longest time the biggest hurdle facing the growth of third parties in this country has been ballot access. A lack of ballot access ties up a third party’s limited resources, forcing them to focus on things other than campaigning. Heading into the 2018 midterm elections, the Libertarian Party will have ballot access in 37 states.

What’s more important than ballot access, however, is that the Libertarian Party has incumbents that need to win re-election; Nebraska State Senator Laura Ebke, along with New Hampshire State Representatives Brandon Phinney, Caleb Dyer, and Joseph Stallcop all ditched their former parties, and registered as Libertarians in the last year. Now they all face re-election bids without the backing of the powerful two party duopoly.

Brandon Phinney is one of 3 libertarians in New Hampshire’s House of Representatives

All the aforementioned candidates had their own reasons for ditching their former parties. Joseph Stallcop, who serves in New Hampshire’s House of Representatives representing Cheshire 4, was elected as a Democrat. His decision to switch to the Libertarian Party, he told Authentic Liberty, was based in part because of the disrespect his ideas and views were generating among Democrats. Stallcops colleague, Brandon Phinney, explained his decision to switch parties as frustration with the direction, and leadership of Republicans, a familiar sentiment. When Authentic Liberty asked Senator Laura Ebke why she switched parties, she pointed out several moments where she realized that the Republican Party no longer represented her values. Senator Ebke told us that “the recognition that the Republicans were going to nominate Trump, and then a “call out” for not being an adequately “platform Republican” at the 2016 State GOP convention by the Governor–when he called out a number of us by name” appeared to be the last straw. Like many people, Senator Ebke realized that the GOP didn’t care about policy, but party.

While Representative Stallcop is unsure if he will be running for re-election next year (he is set to graduate from college), the state of New Hampshire presents an interesting scenario for Brandon Phinney and Caleb Dyer, his colleagues in the only libertarian caucus in the nation. New Hampshire is one of a handful of states that allows for “fusion tickets,” which allow one candidate to run under multiple parties. Both Phinney and Dyer, former Republicans, could choose to seek both the Republican and Libertarian nominations for their districts,and in a comment to Authentic Liberty, Phinney stated that this is his intention; in doing so they would eliminate potential rivals while having their names appear multiple times on the ballot. That scenario could be interesting, and increase their odds of reelection, but could also make them beholden to the whims of two different parties. A victory on a fusion ticket would also minimize the importance of the Libertarian Party; if, in this hypothetical situation, both candidates win both the Republican and Libertarian nominations, then win the election, outsiders could say that they only won because of the Republican Party, marginalizing the importance of libertarians.

Senator Ebke’s situation in Nebraska is also interesting. She serves in the only unicameral state legislature in the nation, and in Nebraska, all state elections are

Senator Laura Ebke is up for re-election in 2018

nonpartisan, when voters step into the ballot box in 2018 they will see a list of names with no party affiliation. Senator Ebke believes the nonpartisan nature of Nebraska’s state elections probably helps her, as she explained to Authentic Liberty “while many people will know the affiliation, the fact that it isn’t listed on the ballot, nor do we organize by party in the legislature–probably helps me some.” Senator Ebke says that the biggest difference she has noticed during her re-election bid is her ability to effectively raise money; “Libertarians–as a whole–seem to be far less likely to part with their money–whether $25 of $100. Republican (and probably Democrat) activists are used to being asked for cash, and attending fundraisers.” With that said, she has had some success raising money for her re-election, and she will continue to need our support, if you’ve got $10, you can make a donation here.

Winning re-election to these offices should be the focus of the Libertarian Party. As we move forward we cannot simply be content with the occasional officeholder quitting their party out of protest, and registering as a libertarian. Libertarians need to learn how to win elections; we need an effective, proven blueprint, and we need to show the Republicans and Democrats that we can do more than just steal a few votes. The best way to do that is by continuing to seek support from the party at both the state and national level. If we cannot support our candidates and win elections as libertarians, then party members really need to question if there is any advantage to running for office as a libertarian.

Last week an astonishing story came out of Canada. Apparently, the City of Toronto had stated that it would cost the taxpayers of Ontario $65,000 to build some stairs in a city park. In an act of sensibility and reason, a retired mechanic decided he could probably build that same set of stairs at a cheaper rate, so he got to work, completing the project for a mere $550 dollars. For some reason this pissed off the city of Toronto, who decided to waste taxpayer dollars and tear down the handyman’s stairs.

It’s astonishing how many examples there are of the government wasting taxpayer dollars. If one city is willing to spend $65,000 to build something one guy did over a weekend, presumably with a six pack of Molson, for under $600, what else are they wasting our money on?

$100 Million Dollars In Unused Airline Tickets

Between 1997 and 2003 a federal audit revealed that the Department of Defense spent in excess of $100 million dollars on airline tickets that were never used. That’s 270,000 unused airline tickets. Between 2001 and 2002 the audit revealed that the Pentagon purchased the same ticket twice in an astonishing 27,000 instances. But perhaps the worst part about this waste is that these tickets were fully refundable.

The Department of Defense and the Pentagon fall under “military spending.” Still think we can’t afford to reduce military spending?

$29 Million Dollars Worth of Construction Equipment Lost in Afghanistan

I’ll never forget when my friend Abe returned from serving his second tour in Iraq in 2009. Sitting outside on a patio outside of a bar in Iowa he lit up a cigarette, and before taking his first puff he was already laughing. Confused, we asked him what was so funny, and with a smile on his face he started telling us how odd it was to be able to smoke outside of a bar. He went on to tell us that how in the military he was only allowed to smoke in certain areas; often times shacks that he and his unit would have to build. He told us one story of how when he was in Afghanistan the closest smoke shack was about a mile away. Disappointed, he and some men from his unit decided to obtain material to build one closer to where they spent most of their day. He went on to describe how he had no idea how much, or even what material was needed, so while he and his unit were filling out the paperwork they would guess at what was needed. The requisition was approved, and when the material arrived they realized they had way too much material, and after the shack was built they sort of abandoned the surplus and forgot about it.

Since 2001, the government has spent nearly $4 TRILLION dollars on wars in the Middle East. We often hear from Republicans in Congress that the taxpayer dollars being spent in Afghanistan, and throughout the region are in an effort to make the region safe, and therefore to keep America safe. But as my friend Abe pointed out, a lot of it is bullshit.

In his annual “Festivus” report, Senator Rand Paul highlighted how in 2016 taxpayers spent $29 million dollars on lost cranes and bulldozers in Afghanistan.

Pentagon Spends $43 Million on One Gas Station in Afghanistan

In October of 2015, the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction published an alarming report. Apparently taxpayers had spent $43 million dollars to build a single compressed natural gas station in Sheberghan Afghanistan. The purpose of the gas station, according to the report, was to highlight the commercial viability of using compressed natural gas to fuel vehicles in the region. John Sopko, who commissioned the report, had previously built a similar gas station in Pakistan for $500,000, meaning this particular station cost 140 times more.

The report highlights more than $30 million in overhead, and, according to Sopko;

“One of the most troubling aspects of this project is that the Department of Defense claims that it is unable to provide and explanation for the high cost of the project or to answer any other questions concerning its planning, implementation or outcome.”

The average American is responsible for making sure that they can provide for themselves and their families, we are expected to act responsibly. But like that trust fund kid paying for his whole crew to go on spring break with him, the government doesn’t care about cost because they’re paying with someone else’s money.

$48,500 to Study the Smoking Habits of Russians

Russians like to do many things; drink vodka, watch hockey, hack our elections, and smoke tobacco. In fact Russians really like their tobacco; 60% of Russian men, and 25% of Russian woman regularly indulge in tobacco products.

In April of 2015 the U.S. National Institutes of Health gave a grad student nearly $50,000 to study the habits of tobacco use in Russia over the last 130 years.

I think I join the vast majority of Americans when I say, “who cares?”

$9.6 Billion a Year on the

F

Formed as part of the “New Deal” by FDR in 1935, the “Rural Utilities Service Program” was designed to bring electricity to farms across the country, which may have been a good idea at the time. That year only 11% of this America’s farms had electricity. Today, however, the program is a giant, inefficient boondoggle, and eliminating the program would save taxpayers close to $10 billion dollars in the first year. What they’ve been doing lately is spending an estimated $5,500 per resident to give a rural town in Arkansas with a population of 122 people internet access.

While the program obviously has noble intentions, the private sector could, and would step up to fill this void. Google, and other tech giants love to invest in bringing infrastructure to more potential clients. But why would they invest in infrastructure when the government already does. When the government cuts spending in one area there is usually a large public outcry, then the void gets filled by private enterprise.Thereare literally hundreds of examples of how the government wastes our money on a daily basis, yet progressives constantly want to add more government programs. Lets return that money to the people, let us decide what is and is not worthwhile.